Can a Pope Help Sustain Humanity and Ecology?

VATICAN CITY — For four long days, several dozen physical, environmental and social scientists hunkered here with theologians, philosophers, economists and a poverty campaigner to explore ways to balance human ambitions with the planet’s limits. The rare joint meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences — “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature, Our Responsibility” — helped demarcate where science leaves off and the rest of society, including organized religion, plays a role in shaping the quality of human life and environmental conditions in this century.

Presentations focused on deepening inequality, the evidence for dangerous climate change, population trends, urban problems, new economic models and more. [They are all posted here.]

Although this meeting was planned before Francis was selected, many participants were hoping some of the themes might influence that document, particularly with the United Nations closing in on a set of Sustainable Development Goals and a fresh effort to negotiate a new climate treaty coming to a head in late 2015. On hand were some remarkable people, including four Nobel laureates.

I was invited to present a summary of my impressions as the meeting drew to a close. I found much to be optimistic about. You can watch my remarks on YouTube or read them below as prepared for the interpreters and participants.

Here’s the text of my remarks, which I titled “Charting a Sustainable Human Journey – The Roles of Data, Values, Will and Love”:

It was a great honor to be invited to attend this remarkable workshop, and it is a more humbling honor to be invited now to reflect on these remarkable presentations and conversations — spanning a range of fields from glaciology to psychology and a range of experience from that of a 96-year-old oceanographer to that of a 30-year-old advocate for street workers.

As a generalist informed by three decades of reporting on the interface of science and society, from the North Pole to the Amazon, I approach this task with the advice of the Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann in mind.

When faced with complex problems, he has said, the wisest course is to take a “crude look at the whole.” That’s what I’ll attempt to do.

In convening experts from across the natural and social sciences under the mantle of one of the world’s great faiths, Chancellor Sorondo and the other organizers have beautifully reflected the realities underpinning our species’ challenge at the dawn of an era of Earth history that is increasingly under our influence.

That Pope Francis chose to greet us today reflects his passion for harmonizing human relations and our relationship with this living planet. In this focus, the Pope is building on a foundation laid by Saint Francis, who – as several here have noted –called creatures and creation kin.

Humanity, in essence, is in a race between potency and awareness. The outcome will determine the quality of our species’ journey and will leave an indelible mark, for better or worse, on the planet we inhabit.

And just as a teenager resists calls from elders to grow up, societies – only naturally – have been initially resistant to scientists’ warnings of irreversible damage to the planet’s biological patrimony, risks attending unabated climate change and long-distance impacts of consumptive resource appetites.

In many ways, science has done its job.

The physical and biological sciences, along with revolutionary advances in technology – from satellites to supercomputers – have provided a clarifying picture of human-driven environmental changes.

Psychological studies* and surveys have revealed deeply ingrained human traits, many shaped by our evolutionary history as a “here and now” species, that prevent us from acting rationally in the face of threats with long time scales, dispersed impacts and inherent complexity.

Possible paths have been delineated in recent decades using ever more sophisticated models.

But that is where science’s task ends. It is up to individuals and societies to choose which paths to pursue.

Scientific knowledge reveals options. Values determine choices.

That is why the Roman Catholic Church — with its global reach, the ethical framework in its social justice teachings and, as with all great religions, the ability to reach hearts as well as minds — can play a valuable role in this consequential century.

This is particularly true for planet-scale problems like human-driven climate change, in which governments tend to put national interests ahead of planet-scale interests.

Decisions at the scale of cities, towns, school boards, corporate boards – even households – will, in a cumulative way, be enormously influential and are more apt to be directly shaped by the worldviews and priorities of individuals.

In a prismatic way, those gathered here have made the compelling case that it is a combination of knowledge, faith, will and love that will determine the quality of the human journey in this consequential and complicated century.

Yes, love. More on that in a moment.

Of course, as so many of the participants have conveyed, sustaining humanity on a verdant planet is not an either/or choice.

While data matter enormously, number crunching will not determine the resulting balance.

While choices are shaped by values, values are shaped by upbringing and experience. That means there is room for positive change, particularly through commerce in ideas and information.

As Nancy Knowlton explained in the context of the ailing oceans, revealed connections between causes and effects, together with empathy and a menu of solutions, can spark shifts in behavior.

But the commitment to remain true to a choice and to pursue it through thick and thin requires more than values. It is a function of individual and communal will, as well, as Archbishop Minnerath aptly noted.

The research and ideas presented here revealed another important reality. Given the variegated nature of cultures, worldviews and conditions around the world, it’s clear that humanity will follow many paths in the decades ahead.

Calls for global and enforceable standards are creditable, but face huge hurdles.

Just consider Stefano Zamagni’s point about the many different forms of ethics in different countries, or Professor Schellnhuber’s description of the wickedly complex array of interests and development stages perennially clashing in climate treaty negotiations.

Another reality is that global environmental and social challenges are not the work of a single generation, not problem to fix – but issues to work on perennially as a normal part of how we live and develop.

To grasp why this will take time, consider Edith Brown Weiss’s sobering conclusion that “Earth has become a global commons” knowing that, as Charles Perrings explained, “If we value things at zero they’ll be wasted.”

And consider Joe Stiglitz’s sobering data on the widening gulfs between haves and have-nots.

Navigating these questions can lead one feeling sapped and paralyzed.

But in these sessions I also saw abundant reason for optimism, empowerment and, most importantly, action.

There were Gretchen Daily’s many examples of successful efforts to incorporate previously unmeasured values of living resources into decision-making at many levels.

There was Ram Ramanathan’s extraordinary work grounding atmospheric science in the sooty kitchens of Himalayan villagers.

Then there was Dan Kammen’s description of university students’ efforts to convince boards of trustees that true fiduciary responsibility transcends a strictly financial calculation of a university’s return on investments.

The most important merit of the growing focus on climate-related divestment, to my mind, is that it prompts us all more deeply to consider the definition of an institution’s “endowment.” Is it stocks and bonds alone or something bigger?

The work of Partha Dasgupta also puts a spotlight on this question.

Finally, Janice Perlman’s work reveals the vitality and potential in those caught up in humanity’s astounding high-speed reorganization into a mainly urban species and Juan Grabois’s efforts to give a say to those carving an unaccounted living amid that urban rush show that inclusion matters enormously.

My personal enthusiasm derives mainly from the work of people like Antonio Battro on expanding educational opportunity with a mix of online tools and novel teaching practices.

In a world with 1 billion teenagers and 1 billion more younger children, you can’t build schools fast enough, or train teachers fast enough, to keep up. And failing to keep up will lead to unemployability, disaffection, turmoil.

As Professor Battro noted, the key is expanding basic resources like Internet access — not educational content. In the end, those of us who are professors may be an endangered species. And that can be a good thing, as long as there is equal opportunity for all to become lifelong learners on a planet bathed in information.

Along with alleviating energy poverty, a prime challenge at this moment should be alleviating “information poverty.”

Some factions will fight this, as is the case in Nigeria, where the Boko Haram extremists, whose very name (the translation is “Western education is a sin”) stands against a basic right, are threatening to sell hundreds of kidnapped schoolgirls into slavery.

But there’s never been a greater chance, through collaboration and communication, to imbue our varied human journeys with a shared sense of priorities – including the importance of conserving Earth’s biological bounty, spreading the gifts that come with access to information and safe sources of energy, and limiting the scope of human-driven climate change.

We are building the “noosphere,” the “planetary mind” envisioned in the early 20th century by the Jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin.

But it is up to each of us to use this set of tools for good, not just gain.

This is what the Passionist priest Father Thomas Berry meant when he wrote of “The Great Work” – “to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the Earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial manner.”

It says much that even some of the most accomplished scientists at this meeting articulated that progress on climate, energy, equity, education and conservation of living resources will be driven by values and faith more than data and predictive models.

In a discussion over dinner, Walter Munk, at 96 one of great oceanographers of modern times, spoke not of gigatons of carbon or megawatts of electricity:

“This requires a miracle of love and unselfishness,” he said.

[Disclosure note: My travel costs are being covered by the United Nations Foundation, but there are no constraints on what I write or say.]

Correction: May 7, 2014Corrections have been made at two asterisks above. Naomi Oreskes is a historian (not a sociologist) and it is psychological work (not sociology) that reveals human traits that can mask some sources of risk.

What's Next

About

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to pass nine billion. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. Dot Earth was created by Andrew Revkin in October 2007 -- in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship -- to explore ways to balance human needs and the planet's limits.